Teaching Theology and Religion, ISSN 1368-4868, 2004, vol. 7 no. 4, pp 223–229.
Thinking Developmentally: The Bible, the
First-Year College Student, and Diversity
Elna K. Solvang
Concordia College, Moorhead, Minnesota
Abstract. The Bible is a non-western text subject to a
variety of interpretations and applications – constructive and destructive. The academic study of the Bible,
therefore, requires critical thinking skills and the ability
to engage with diversity. The reality is that most firstyear college students have not yet developed these skills.
Rather than bemoan students’ lack of development, the
essay explores ways of teaching and applying critical
thinking within the context of an introductory Religion
course. The essay claims that first-year college students
can better learn the content of the discipline and function in a pluralistic world if the teaching of critical
thinking skills is a part of the pedagogy.
As a teacher of Bible – Hebrew Bible and the New Testament – I must help contemporary mid-western college
students negotiate an ancient non-western text. Moreover, this encounter with an ancient text is supposed to
assist them in being “thoughtful and informed men and
women” who, according to our college’s mission statement, will “influence the affairs of the world.” Responsible engagement in that world demands appreciation
for its complex diversity.
As a teacher in the academic setting, I do not assume
that all my students embrace the Bible as sacred scripture, nor do I presume to convince them to hold that
position. Yet I believe that reflection on the perspectives,
values, and traditions of this ancient – other – world can
assist students in reflecting on the values and practices
of their own. Therefore, a goal of mine is to produce
students capable of informed and articulate reflection on
the content of the Bible, who can use their study of the
biblical texts as a point for meaningful reflection on
their participation in a pluralistic world.
The Connection between Critical Thinking
and Diversity
Both the academic study of the Bible and engagement
in a pluralistic world require (a) critical thinking skills
and (b) the ability to understand and value perspectives
other than one’s own. The reality, however, is that firstyear college students typically have not developed these
skills.
This reality came home to me in a dramatic way
about a year ago. Imagine 450 first-year students, scattered across a large gym, sitting on the floor in small
groups. These students had just completed a unit on
diversity and participated in anti-racism training. In this
small group exercise they were to discuss where they
would place their college on a continuum that ranged
from an exclusive-racist organization, to an acceptinginclusive institution, to a multicultural and anti-racist
institution. I was stunned and grieved by the level of
resentment to the training and resistance to considering
how personal behavior and institutional practices might
be perceived by others as exclusive or racist. Afterwards
I kept puzzling over what we as faculty and staff were
doing wrong. How could we have failed to convince students of the present reality of racism regardless of the
goodness of their intentions? What could I point to in
my own courses on the Bible that would help them see
how diversity and human community are linked? How
could we help them see that they were privileged
because of the color of their skin, whether or not they
felt they were superior? That what their community
neighbors wanted was not tolerance but dignity and
justice?
As I stewed over their stubbornness I was keenly
aware of my own. The picture that flashed through my
head was that of a donkey sitting down refusing to
budge as someone was desperately tugging on the other
end of the rope. Something’s wrong with this picture, I
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004
Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
224
Solvang
thought. What can we do to change it? Then it occurred
to me that this picture of the donkey and the one pulling
focused on the will to change. I began to ask myself,
how are we helping students develop the skill to change?
I reflected on this question with two sympathetic colleagues in the English Department. We looked at some
of the research on the emotional and intellectual development of college students, particularly Perry’s study of
“structural changes in . . . assumptions about the origins
of knowledge and value” (Perry 1999, 229) and Chickering’s theory of psychosocial development in adolescence and early adulthood (Chickering and Reisser
1993). These helped us interpret responses to diversity
in the workshop and in the classroom with appreciation
for where first-year students are developmentally. Based
on the research and our own classroom experiences we
prepared a short list of general characteristics of incoming college students:
• they tend to be dualistic thinkers
• they tend to be focused on self and have difficulty
thinking outside their own experiences and
circumstances
• they tend to have little skill and experience with
critical thinking
• they tend to be more emotive than reflective
• their communication skills tend to be more suitable
for private than public contexts and for personal narrative than persuasive argument
The list is nothing new or surprising; it reflects the familiar gap between the way incoming college students think
and approach learning and the levels of critical thinking and communication that faculty expect. What is new
– for my colleagues and me – is our decision to make
the teaching of critical thinking part of our pedagogy in
our respective course discipline areas. This involves
helping students acquire the cognitive skills that go into
arriving at judgments based on accurate and relevant
information that take into account multiple perspectives
and acknowledge assumptions, inferences, implications,
and consequences.
Some colleges have first-year seminar classes that are
designed to help students acquire critical thinking and
communication skills. My college does not have such a
program. The first-year course that we do have – Principia, which is intended as an introduction to liberal
learning – is taken by half of the incoming students in
their second semester of college. Therefore, whether it
is in the writing classes my English department colleagues teach or in the introductory Religion course I
teach, we each face the task of changing the learning
profile of first-year students by aiding them in developing new thinking, learning, and expressive skills. While
some faculty might consider the teaching of critical
thinking a remedial strategy, we view it as appropriate
to the developmental stage of incoming college students
and crucial for student engagement with the subjects we
are passionate about and hired to teach.
Students need critical thinking skills as they
encounter the diversity inherent in the content of the
subjects we teach. The Bible must be recognized as originating in a time and a culture other than one’s own.
The Bible cannot be studied without giving attention to
its use throughout history in shaping social structures,
cultural norms, national identities and international
policies, and examining the assumptions and consequences of such use. The academic study of the Bible
involves conscious reflection on the subjective position
from which one reads, as well as the ability to recognize the perspectives of other interpreters. The challenge
is not only to teach first-year students about the diversity that exists, but for them to acquire the skills to
engage diversity productively. The teaching of critical
thinking skills can assist first-year students to learn the
content of our disciplines and function in a pluralistic
world.
Critical Thinking and the Bible
The religion course that first-year students at my
campus enroll in is titled “Christianity and Religious
Diversity.” It is a required course intended “to introduce
students to the academic study of religion through the
study of Christianity’s classic texts and contemporary
expressions.” Students are also introduced to four ways
in which religions and religious phenomena can be
studied, namely, interpretive, historical, comparative,
and constructive methodologies.
Each of these methods is developed more fully in the
upper-level course offerings in the department. The
interpretive area focuses primarily on the study of scripture and biblical languages. Church history, including
the development of particular denominations and
expressions of the Christian tradition, is the focus of the
historical area. The comparative area focuses on relating and differentiating religions. The constructive area
focuses on ethics and examining ways God is perceived
to be present and active in the world today.
One of the objectives of the course is to “encourage
critical inquiry and constructive thought about religion
and religious questions,” however the teaching of critical thinking skills is not specifically stated. Since there
are 10–12 faculty teaching this course each semester, we
have agreed to a common set of objectives, the same
number of tests, the same total number of pages for
writing assignments and to include readings from particular parts of the biblical canon and primary texts
from particular periods in church history.
Each instructor has the freedom to design their class
to meet the common objectives as well as to reflect their
passions and expertise. My sections, therefore, concen© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004
225
Thinking Developmentally
trate more on reading, interpreting, and the ethics of
contemporary applications of biblical texts. Though I
cover all four approaches for studying religion in the
course, in this essay I focus on the interpretive
methodology.
The expectations for the material to be covered and
the confines of the semester schedule may make it
appear foolish to talk about adding the teaching of
critical thinking to a discipline-specific course. Yet, the
limits of time are a reminder that (1) what we teach in
the semester should equip students to continue their
learning and exploration of these issues in the future;
and (2) it is to our advantage to maximize the learning
process in the limited time we do have with students. I
would argue that I do not take time away from covering content in the way I teach critical thinking skills. It
is the content of the course that provides the occasion
to teach those skills, and those skills are necessary for
wrestling with the content of the course.
One of the tools I use to teach critical thinking is
“Bloom’s Taxonomy.” I introduce it to my students on
the second day of class. Bloom’s Taxonomy displays a
range of what it means to “know” something – from
being able to repeat information, to being able to apply
information, to being able to analyze information, to
being able to assess and evaluate (See Table 1).
I introduce Bloom’s Taxonomy to de-mystify what is
going on in the college classroom. I use it to draw students’ attention to different ways of preparing for class,
to the types of questions I may ask on homework assignments and exams and to ways they can work with the
information they gather in this class. I am signaling to
students that I am expecting them to do more than
repeat back what I tell them. A couple of years ago I
had a student who did quite well in my class. She said
to me, “after the first exam I figured out what you were
looking for.” Through Bloom’s Taxonomy I try to help
all students figure out what college thinking involves
and what I am expecting from them.
Another way I signal to students that they are
expected to achieve new levels of cognitive understanding and expressive performance is by labeling the first
three written assignments as “portfolio components.”
Artists demonstrate their competencies by assembling a
portfolio of their work. Similarly, I suggest to my students that the work that they do in this class demonstrates their abilities and that each of these portfolio
assignments allows them to demonstrate skills necessary
for the study of religion. Each skill will also be needed
to complete the final paper.
I list on the syllabus what each portfolio component
demonstrates. The first component – due the second or
third class – demonstrates the ability to summarize the
ideas of different authors. At a minimum this is about
Comprehension, the second category on Bloom’s taxonomy. It can be a challenge to first-year college stu© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004
Table 1:
Bloom’s Taxonomy
Knowledge
Observation and recall information
Knowledge of dates, events, places
Knowledge of major ideas
Mastery of subject material
Question cues:
list, define, tell, describe, identify, show, label,
collect, examine, tabulate, quote, name, who,
when, where, etc.
Comprehension
Understanding information
Grasp meaning
Translate knowledge into new context
Interpret facts, compare, contrast
Predict consequences
Question cues:
summarize, describe, interpret, contrast, predict,
associate, distinguish, estimate, differentiate,
discuss, extend
Application
Use information
Use methods, concepts, theories in new situations
Solve problems using required skills or knowledge
Question cues:
apply, demonstrate, calculate, complete, illustrate,
show, solve, examine, modify, relate, change,
classify, experiment, discover
Analysis
Seeing patterns
Organization of parts
Recognition of hidden meanings
Identification of components
Question cues:
analyze, separate, order, explain, connect, classify,
arrange, divide, compare, select, explain, infer
Synthesis
Use old ideas to create new ones
Generalize from given facts
Relate knowledge from several areas
Predict, draw conclusions
Question cues:
combine, integrate, modify, rearrange, substitute,
plan, create, design, invent, what if?, compose,
formulate, prepare, generalize, rewrite
Evaluation
Compare and discriminate between ideas
Assess value of theories, presentations
Make choices based on reasoned argument
Verify value of evidence
Recognize subjectivity
Question cues:
assess, decide, rank, grade, test, measure,
recommend, convince, select, judge, explain,
discriminate, support, conclude, compare,
summarize
Prepared by the University of Victoria Counseling Services. Adapted
from B. S. Bloom, ed., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals: Handbook I, Cognitive Domain (New
York: Longmans, Green, 1956).
dents to summarize the main ideas of an essay and
describe these ideas to their reader. In this assignment
they must distinguish one author from another and the
ideas of the authors from their own views.
226
Solvang
The authors they read for this first assignment are
Martin Luther King, Jr. and Anthony Weston. The articles are part of the way I introduce students to the
ethical implications of religious convictions and challenge students to see themselves as social actors in a
pluralistic world. In the chapter “Thinking for Yourself” in A Practical Companion to Ethics (Weston 1997,
13–27), Weston identifies three main sources for ethical
decision-making: social norms, civic and professional
authorities, and religious sources and authorities. He
argues that individuals cannot merely accept what these
sources say; they must actively engage in decisionmaking. In the essay “A Tough Mind and a Tender
Heart” in Strength to Love (King 1988, 9–16), King
argues that most people are “soft-minded” – unwilling
to think critically, wanting to go with the crowd, fearful
of change, pre-judging others, and easily manipulated.
King argues that to act ethically one needs a tough mind
and tender heart, a combination of critical reasoning
and genuine compassion.
Students like these two essays. Sadly, what they like
best is not always in the essay. They agree with Weston
that there are no fail-proof sources nor universally
applicable truisms for ethical decision making, but they
frequently reduce the “thinking for yourself” to “you
have to do what you feel is right.” They like what
Weston says but fail to recognize that what he says is
not the same as what they are saying. With the King
essay they resonate with the tender-heartedness but
struggle even to remember the phrase “tough-minded.”
It frequently comes out as “hard-minded” and they
associate it with being mean. Some understand it as
“making your own decisions.” All have a difficult time
perceiving the process of critical thinking and the potentially costly conviction that King is challenging them to
undertake. The students’ focus on feelings and their
assumption that the authors see the world as they do
are not surprising given the general profile of incoming
students. The articles, the portfolio assignment, and the
class discussion provide a starting point for considering
the connection between critical thinking – particularly
the role of questioning, reasoning, and consultation –
and moral behavior.
To help students recognize the decision-making that
is a part of biblical interpretation and appreciate the
ways interpretations shape understandings of self and
others, we examine the history of apartheid in South
Africa. Students read Desmond Tutu’s No Future
Without Forgiveness, an account of the work of the
Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa.
As we begin discussing the book I have students recall
what they were doing April 27, 1994 – the day of the
first universal elections in South Africa. This question
allows them to talk about their favorite subject – themselves. It also allows them to exist in the same time
frame alongside the lives of people Tutu describes in the
book. It opens a space for empathy and curiosity. Students will talk about disruptions, dislocations, and disappointments that occurred in their own lives that year,
but they also recognize the relative safety and privilege
of their lives and begin to express concern for the lives
of these other people they meet through Tutu’s book.
The empathic connection is hard to build. When I
used Martin Luther King’s Strength to Love collection
of essays as a class text, students loved the essays but
could not grasp the political and theological context to
which those essays were addressed. Frequently they
would write about King “during the time of slavery.”
They felt bad about what happened to him but they
could not connect his legacy to their world.
As we read Tutu’s book, I show students portions of
two videos. One, from 1986, is Witness to Apartheid
(Sopher 1986) narrated by Bill Moyers. This provides a
graphic depiction of the unrest and violence in the townships, the indignities of the apartheid system, the level
of military strength used to enforce apartheid and the
profound separation of the worlds of white and black
South Africans. Desmond Tutu is interviewed in the
video so students can connect a voice and face to what
they are reading. The video also presents on-the-street
spot interviews with white South Africans. One woman,
when asked what she thought about what was going on
in the townships, replies, “I don’t really know. I think
they are all happy.” My students always pick up on this,
asking, “Did she not know or did she not want to
know?”
This is a question I would like my students to ask of
their own lives. They are of the opinion that racism is
a matter of personal intentions, immediately recognizable, and socially unacceptable. The video and the book
help them see racism socially constructed, legally
enforced, and the normative foundation for daily living.
My students are rightfully repulsed by the assumptions,
privileges, and damages of apartheid. They readily
empathize with the South African blacks and puzzle
over the behavior of most South African whites. This is
an appropriate response and an indication of movement
beyond their self-referential view of reality, but it is not
yet critical thinking. They know apartheid is bad, but
they cannot explain its existence or see patterns in this
phenomenon that will enable them to recognize it in
other contexts. In Bloom’s taxonomy these skills are
components of Analysis.
I indicated above that I believe reflection on the perspectives and traditions of the biblical world can assist
students in reflecting on the values and practices of their
own. When we are reading the book of Exodus we have
the opportunity to make such a connection. Exodus
begins by mentioning how the Israelites were fruitful
and multiplied and grew exceedingly strong in the land
of Egypt. Then the new king of Egypt says “Look, the
Israelite people are more numerous and more powerful
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004
Thinking Developmentally
than we. Come, let us deal shrewdly with them, or they
will increase and, in the event of war, join our enemies
and fight against us and escape from the land” (Exod.
1:9b-10). Fear drives the division between us and them.
Fear creates a new oppressive social order. The authority of the king legitimates crimes against humanity as he
instructs the midwives Shiphrah and Puah to kill every
male Hebrew baby that they deliver. The midwives don’t
fear the king, as one might expect, but fear God and
spare the infant boys.
A simple reading of this opening chapter of Exodus
not only points to the central tension of fear of God vs.
fear of Pharaoh and service to God vs. service to
Pharaoh that structures the book of Exodus, but it
invites reflection on how fear drives human behavior
and supplies “reason” for oppression and violent
aggression in the world today. In class discussion, connections are made between Pharaoh’s reasoning and the
soft-mindedness that Martin Luther King, Jr. addresses
in his essay and between the development of oppression
in the Exodus text and the development of apartheid in
South Africa. The midwives’ refusal to comply provides
an opening for discussing tough-mindedness and the
process of thinking that leads to a decision to resist. Students make connections not only to anti-apartheid
efforts in South Africa but to other local, regional, and
global examples.
The second portfolio assignment asks students to
read two psalms and a passage from Deuteronomy and
“prepare a written summary of the expectations of the
human king described there . . . and how the relationship between the king and God is depicted.” The skill
being exercised here is one of analysis as they “demonstrate the ability to connect different perspectives from
different biblical passages on the same topic.” However,
I have discovered that for at least half of the students in
a class this assignment challenges them at the level of
Comprehension. As in the first portfolio assignment,
they must distinguish between what they think about a
subject and what someone else, that is, the Bible, actually says about it. Moreover they must assemble differing perspectives into a comprehensive statement. Much
of what students claim about kingship in their portfolio papers is not what is said in these biblical passages.
When we go over these texts in class some students
chafe but most are genuinely surprised to discover on
this topic that the Bible reflects not only a culture but a
theology other than their own.
Acknowledgment and comfort with genuine differences in perspective are elements of critical thinking that
students need in order to read the Bible and relay its
contents accurately to others.
While there are limits to what one can claim a text
says, there is a great deal of freedom in interpreting
meaning and applying these texts. The third portfolio
assignment allows students to exercise these skills. Stu© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004
227
dents, working in groups, select a passage from the
Gospel of Luke. They are to read about their passage
in commentaries reflecting varying methodological
approaches as well as gender, class, cultural, and
denominational perspectives that I have placed on
reserve in the library. Students are to examine their
passage closely and develop their own view of the
message of the passage. Then they are to present the
passage to the rest of the class. I continue to be amazed
not only by the creativity they invest in developing
videos, PowerPoint presentations, skits, puppet shows,
and dialogues to communicate their passages, but by
their use of scholarly sources to explore differing possibilities for interpreting even familiar passages and by
their enthusiasm and newly acquired ability to construct
and explain their own interpretive choices.
The passages presented allow prominent themes in
Luke to become visible and alive. Students discover the
ethical expectations of the Gospel. A key theme that
emerges is the gospel’s invitation to those on the margins
of society to enter fully into the community and the
expectation that those in authority and privilege
welcome them and rejoice over this reversal.
This returns us to the challenge presented in
Desmond Tutu’s No Future Without Forgiveness. How
can those who have formerly existed on the margins of
society enter fully into the community? And how can
this reversal take place with rejoicing but without retaliation? Tutu argues that in South Africa this reversal
can only take place through truth telling and renouncing the claim to retributive justice.
Tutu’s book and video footage from the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission hearings, Facing the Truth
(Pellett 1998), provide vivid testimony of South Africa’s
attempt to emerge from destructive patterns of dealing
with difference and to construct a new and different
South Africa. Once again the video allows my students
to empathize with the victims and puzzle over the motivations of those engaged in the violence. They are
overwhelmed by the mercy extended by victims. Their
written comments right after viewing the video include
the following:
“I cannot imagine being in either position of confessing or hearing what these people have done to others
like you.” “I just don’t understand how a person could
take part in this kind of behavior. I know they were
ordered to do it but you’d think they would have
enough sense not to. I just wonder what was going on
in their heads.”
“I kept wondering who thought of this idea of
oppressing another race. After watching some of the testimonies of those who were oppressed I am finally
beginning to realize what apartheid really is. I never
thought about how brutal it actually was.” “It sickens
me to know this was going on in my lifetime. I tried to
place myself in the African’s position and I know I am
228
Solvang
not a strong enough person to handle that. I also placed
myself in the policeman’s position and I don’t think I
would have been able to forgive myself.”
The conditions and events described in Tutu’s book
and depicted in the videos push students to ponder their
own behavior. I am not interested in having students
speculate on what they would have done if they were
residents of South Africa. No one would imagine perpetrating crimes against humanity or being so folded
within a social system so as not to see what was going
on. However, I am interested in students considering
how a system such as apartheid could “reasonably” be
created, sustained, defended, and eventually dismantled.
This type of critical thinking requires a Synthesis of
knowledge from different areas. If students’ thinking
about diversity is to be critical they must recognize that,
though they lack the ability to imagine themselves perpetrating crimes against humanity, they do not lack the
ability to act in those ways.
Tutu asserts that ability in two theological claims
that he says were essential to the work of the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission: (1) “Each of us has this
capacity for the most awful evil” (Tutu 1999, 85), and
(2) “all of us . . . [have] this remarkable capacity for
good, for generosity, for magnanimity” (Tutu 1999, 86).
These claims challenge the dualistic thinking that firstyear students typically operate with, but they also make
sense of what students have witnessed in the readings
and in the videos about apartheid in South Africa.
Moreover, students can relate these claims to what they
have been reading in the Bible, where they read of
crowds hailing Jesus that eventually shout for him to be
crucified; where they hear a parable about a priest and
a Levite inexplicably leaving a man for dead on the side
of the road while an outsider, a Samaritan, chooses to
respond in a generous and risky way.
These claims also provide an opening for students to
consider and discuss how they choose to treat those who
have mistreated or offended them. To help students do
this, I have students consider four statements about forgiveness that Tutu (1999) addresses:
• there are some things that are unforgivable (260)
• forgiving means forgetting (271)
• confession is very helpful, but not absolutely necessary for someone to receive forgiveness (272)
• forgiveness involves trying to understand the person
who harmed you (271)
As we discuss each statement, students move around the
classroom to position themselves on a continuum from
“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” They are typically surprised by the visible range of opinions on each
of these statements. I say very little. Students test
whether these statements reflect Tutu’s argument. They
share the reasons why they have chosen their place on
the continuum. They question each other to understand
each other’s position and explore the implications of
those positions. On occasion students have shared
poignant examples of forgiveness and the hope of reconciliation from their own lives. The goal of this exercise is not to get agreement on a right response, but to
reinforce critical thinking as an essential factor in ethical
behavior.
Conclusion
I have argued in this essay that for first-year college students to learn about Christianity and to become familiar with methods used in the study of religion they need
to recognize and value diversity and acquire critical
thinking skills. I have attempted to demonstrate how
students might learn critical thinking skills as part of
coming to understand the cultural otherness and theological complexity of the Bible and appreciating the
ethical consequences of various biblical interpretations.
In my discussion of the course I have tried to bring
together teaching about diversity and teaching the skills
needed to negotiate that diversity.
The activities that I have described in this essay are
intended to meet the goals of a course that is an “Introduction to Christianity and Religious Diversity.” The
argument for teaching critical thinking and many of
the activities designed to do that, however, are relevant
to any religion class that includes first-year college
students.
It was necessity that pushed me to begin teaching
critical thinking skills in my introductory class. Without
these skills students are not capable of informed and
articulate reflection on the content of the Bible, nor can
they use their study of the biblical texts as a point for
meaningful reflection on their participation in a pluralistic world. Over time I have become convinced that the
teaching of critical thinking skills also belongs in an
introductory religion class. Critical thinking skills need
to develop within conversation about values, the human
capacity for good and evil, and the diversity of human
experience.
References
Chickering, Arthur W. and Reisser, Linda. 1993. Education
and Identity. 2d ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
King, Martin Luther, Jr. 1988. Strength to Love. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press.
King, Patricia M. and Kitchener, Karen Strohm. 1994. Reflective Judgment Model of Intellectual Development in the
College Years. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Paul, Richard W. and Elder, Linda. 2002. Tools for Taking
Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life. Upper
Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004
Thinking Developmentally
Pellett, Gail. 1998. Facing the Truth with Bill Moyers. New
York: Public Affairs Television, Inc. 120 min. Videocassette.
Perry, William G., Jr., 1999. Reprint. Forms of Intellectual and
Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Original edition, New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968, 1970.
Sopher, Sharon I. 1986. Witness to Apartheid. San Francisco:
California Newsreel; Southern Africa Media Center. 56
min. Videocassette.
Tutu, Desmond. 1999. No Future Without Forgiveness. New
York: Image.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004
229
University of Victoria Counseling Service Learning Skills
Program, “Bloom’s Taxonomy,” 3 September 2003.
<http://www.coun.uvic.ca/learn/program/hndouts/bloom.
html> (5 April 2004). Adapted from Bloom, B. S., ed. 1956.
Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of
Educational Goals: Handbook I, Cognitive Domain. New
York: Longmans, Green.
Weston, Anthony. 1997. A Practical Companion to Ethics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.